Re: VRML - The next step?

David Peck ([email protected])
Tue, 4 Apr 1995 19:10:03 -0400 (EDT)

I don't know about the whole PHIL thing (I was just reading :-) but I
think that speculation on which MUD/MUSH/whatever is best is not
appropriate for this list, at least not yet. In fact, this entire topic
that I brought up may not be appropriate, and as such, I'm looking into
starting a new mailing list with this concept in mind.

However, I haven't heard one way or another from the VRML list moderators....

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Peck
http://www.mbhs.edu/~dpeck/
Macintosh SW Games Programmer
"Weep for the future. Weep for us all..." - B5

On Tue, 4 Apr 1995, Andrew C. Esh wrote:

> On Tue, 4 Apr 1995, Alexander the Great wrote:
>
> > *ahems* and steps up on the soap box:
> >
> > The differences between "MUD"s and MUSHs have been debated
> > elsewhere by more qualified people then many on here (I'm not meaning to
> > be deragatory as this sounds, simply stating that this forum has
> > different expertise on the whole).
>
> Hmm. Why is it this list allows this huge diatribe on the differences
> between MUDs and MUSHs, and yet they go to all sorts of trouble to get rid
> of those of use who want to discuss the philosophy of, and speculate on
> the future uses of VRML? Nothing against it, but I'm feeling kind of
> slighted. You could have saved us all the trouble and simply asked me to
> shut up on the PHIL subject.
>
> ---
> Andrew C. Esh mailto:[email protected]
> Computer Network Technology [email protected] (finger for PGP key)
> 6500 Wedgwood Road 612.550.8000 (main)
> Maple Grove MN 55311 612.550.8229 (direct)
> <A HREF="http://www.mtn.org/~andrewes">ACE Home Page</A>
>
>